Technical Support Document 

EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783 

Disapproval of Revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plans for the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral, Step 2 GHG 

Permitting and Minor Source GHG Permitting 

Revisions to Arkansas Regulation 19, Chapter 2 submitted on November 6, 2012 

Revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC submitted on January 8, 2013 

Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 submitted on February 6, 2012 

Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31 submitted on January 18, 2013 

December 2, 2015 

No material in this submittal package was designated as Confidential Business Information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Air Permits Section 

(6PD-R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-2115. 
2

Contents 

I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3

A. What actions are evaluated in this Technical Support Document? ..................................... 3

B. Summary Tables of Submittals Covered in this TSD ......................................................... 4

II. Technical Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal ............................. 12

A. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal with respect to Appendix V 

to Part 51 ........................................................................................................................... 12

B. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal with respect to the federal 

requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 16

C. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal respect to section 110(l) of 

the CAA ............................................................................................................................ 17

III. Technical Evaluation of the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal ........................... 18

A. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, 

Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 18

B. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to the federal 

requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 23

C. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to section 

110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 24

IV. Technical Evaluation of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal ............................. 25

A. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, 

Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 25

B. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal 

requirements minor NSR and PSD Permitting ................................................................. 30

C. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 

110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 31

V. Technical Evaluation of the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal ............................. 33

A. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, 

Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 33

B. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal 

requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 38

C. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 

110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 39

V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 41

 
3

I. Executive Summary 

A. What actions are evaluated in this Technical Support Document? 

This technical support document (TSD) reviews severable provisions submitted to the Arkansas, 

New Mexico and Oklahoma SIPs to adopt the EPA’s July 20, 2011 GHG Biomass Deferral. This 

TSD also reviews one revision to the Oklahoma SIP to provide for minor source permitting for 

GHG emissions and for PSD permitting of sources that are required to have a PSD permit based 

solely on emissions of GHGs. This review will determine if the following submitted revisions 

are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s policy and 

guidance. 

Arkansas November 6, 2012, SIP Submittal 

On June 22, 2012, the Arkansas Pollution Control &Ecology Commission adopted revisions to 

Regulation 9 – Permit Fee Regulations, Regulation 19 – Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of 

Implementation for Air Pollution Control, and Regulation 26 – Regulations of the Arkansas 

Operating Air Permit Program. On October 26, 2012, APC&EC adopted additional revisions to 

Regulation 19. Governor Beebe submitted these regulations as a revision to the Arkansas SIP in 

a letter dated November 6, 2012. 

As part of this action, EPA is addressing the following revisions contained in the November 6, 

2012 submittal that were adopted on October 26, 2012, effective November 18, 2012, 

respectively: 

 Substantive revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass 

Deferral in the definition for “CO2 equivalent emissions”. 

New Mexico January 8, 2013, SIP Submittal 

In a letter dated January 8, 2013, David Martin, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED), submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP that were adopted by the New 

Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NM EIB) on January 7, 2013. The submitted 

revisions were effective on February 6, 2013. This SIP submittal included revisions to the New 

Mexico PSD Permitting Program at 20.2.74 NMAC. The revision to 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC 

addressing the GHG Biomass Deferral is the only portion of this submittal under review in this 

TSD. 

Oklahoma February 6, 2012, SIP Submittal 

In a letter dated February 6, 2012, Gary Sherrer, the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP. The submitted revisions included provisions for minor 

source permitting of greenhouse gases at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and provisions for GHG PSD 

permitting for non-anyway sources, or step 2 sources. Today’s TSD will only address the GHG 

minor source permitting provisions and the provisions for non-anyway source permitting that 

have now been vacated and removed by the EPA. This submittal also included other revisions to 

the Oklahoma major source permitting programs that will be addressed separately in other 

actions. 

Oklahoma January 18, 2013, SIP Submittal 
4

In a letter dated January 18, 2013, Gary Sherrer, the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP. The submitted revisions included revisions to the 

General Definitions for the OK SIP at OAC 252:100-1-3 and the OK PSD program definitions at 

OAC 252:100-8-31 effective on July 1, 2012, to address the GHG Biomass Deferral. Only the 

portions of these definitions pertaining to the GHG Biomass Deferral will be addressed in this 

TSD. This submittal also included other revisions to the Oklahoma SIP for Incinerator Control 

requirements and requirements for the control of emissions of sulfur compounds. 

B. Summary Tables of Submittals Covered in this TSD 

Table 1: Summary of the Arkansas Revisions Submitted November 6, 2012 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

Regulation 9, 

Chapter 5 

Air Permit Fees November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

Approved by EPA 

on April 30, 2015. 

See 80 FR 24216. 

Regulation 19, 

Chapter 1 

Title, Intent, and 

Purpose 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

Approved by EPA 

on March 4, 2015. 

See 80 FR 11573. 

Regulation 19, 

Chapter 2 

Definitions November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

All revisions except 

for the GHG 

Biomass Deferral 

provisions in the 

definition of CO2

Equivalent 

Emissions were 

approved by EPA 

on March 4, 2015. 

See 80 FR 11573. 

This TSD evaluates 

only the Biomass 

Deferral provisions 

in the definition of 

CO2e submitted on 

November 6, 2012. 

Regulation 19, 

Chapter 4 

Minor Source 

Review 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

No action at this 

time; Severable 

from provisions for 

PSD because 

addresses Minor 

NSR only. 

Regulation 19, 

Chapter 9 

Prevention of 

Significant 

Deterioration 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

Approved by EPA 

on April 2, 2013, at 

78 FR 19596. 
5

Table 1: Summary of the Arkansas Revisions Submitted November 6, 2012 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

Regulation 19, 

Appendix A 

Insignificant 

Activities List 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

No action at this 

time; Severable 

from provisions for 

PSD because 

addresses Minor 

NSR only. 

Regulation 26, 

Chapter 3 

Requirements for a 

Permit, 

Applicability 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

No action at this 

time; Severable 

from provisions for 

Title I SIP purposes, 

Revisions to 

Arkansas Title V 

program to address 

GHG permitting 

under Title V. 

Regulation 26, 

Chapter 4 

Applications for 

Permits 

November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and 

October 26, 2012 

No action at this 

time; Severable 

from provisions for 

Title I SIP purposes, 

Revisions to 

Arkansas Title V 

program to address 

GHG permitting 

under Title V. 

Table 2: Summary of the New Mexico Revisions Submitted January 8, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

20.2.70.7 NMAC Definitions January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7, 

2013 

Effective February 

6, 2013 

No action at this 

time; Severable 

from provisions for 

Title I SIP purposes; 

Revisions to the 

New Mexico Title 

V Operating 

Permits Program. 

20.2.74.7 NMAC Definitions January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7, 

2013 

Effective February 

6, 2013 

All revisions except 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) 

NMAC were 

approved by EPA 

on December 11, 

2013. See 78 FR 

75253. 

This TSD evaluates 

only the revisions to 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) 

NMAC. 

20.2.74.320 NMAC Actuals Plantwide 

Applicability Limits 

(PALs) 

January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7, 

2013 

Approved by EPA 

on December 11, 
6

Effective February 

6, 2013 

2013. See 78 FR 

75253. 

Table 3: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

OAC 252:100-1-3 General Provisions, 

Definitions 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-1-4 General Provisions, 

Units, abbreviations 

and acronyms 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-3-4 Air Quality 

Standards and 

Increments, 

Significant 

deterioration 

increments 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. March 30, 2005 

OAC 252:100-7-2.1 Permits for Minor 

Facilities, Minor 

permits for 

greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emitting 

facilities 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Reviewed in this 

TSD. 

OAC 252:100-8-2 Permits for Part 70 

Sources, Definitions 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-31 PSD, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Severable portions 

of the definition of 

“subject to 

regulation” at OAC 

252:100-8-31 

pertaining to the 

permitting of Step 

2, non-anyway 

sources will be 

addressed in this 

action. The 

remainder of these 

revisions will be 

addressed by EPA 

in a separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-33 PSD, Exemptions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-35 PSD, Air quality 

impact evaluation 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-

50.1 

NNSR, 

Incorporation by 

reference 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-51 NNSR, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 
7

Table 3: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

OAC 252:100-8-

51.1 

NNSR, Emissions 

reductions and 

offsets 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-52 NNSR, 

Applicability 

determination for 

sources in 

attainment areas 

causing or 

contributing to 

NAAQS violations 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100, 

Appendix E 

Appendix E, 

Primary Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standards 

February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

OAC 252:100-1-3 General Provisions, 

Definitions 

January 18, 2013 May 1, 2012 Severable portion of 

the definition of 

“carbon dioxide 

equivalent” for the 

GHG Biomass 

Deferral will be 

addressed in this 

action. The 

remainder of the 

revisions to OAC 

252:100-1-3 will be 

addressed in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-2-1 Incorporation by 

Reference (IBR), 

Purpose 

January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-2-3 IBR, Incorporation 

by Reference 

January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-2 Permits for Part 70 

Sources and Major 

New Source Review 

(NSR) Sources, 

Requirements for 

construction and 

operating permits 

January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-4 Permits for Part 70 

and Major NSR, 

Definitions 

January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 
8

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

OAC 252:100-8-31 PSD, Definitions January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Severable portion of 

the definition of 

“subject to 

regulation” for the 

GHG Biomass 

Deferral will be 

addressed in this 

action. The 

remainder of the 

revisions to OAC 

252:100-8-31 will 

be addressed in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-33 PSD, Exemptions January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-8-

51.1 

NNSR, Emission 

reductions and 

offsets 

January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-1 Incinerators General 

Provisions, Purpose 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

1.1 

Incinerators General 

Provisions, 

Reference to 40 

CFR 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

1.2 

Incinerators General 

Provisions, 

Terminology related 

to 40 CFR 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

1.3 

Incinerators General 

Provisions, 

Incinerators and 

fuel-burning 

equipment or units 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-2 Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Applicability 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

2.1 

Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Exemptions 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

2.2 

Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Definitions 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 
9

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

OAC 252:100-17-4 Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Particulate Matter 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-5 Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Incinerator design 

and operation 

requirements 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

5.1 

Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, 

Alternative 

incinerator design 

requirements 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-7 Incinerators, 

General Purpose 

Incinerators, Test 

methods 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-8 Incinerators, 

Biomedical Waste 

Incinerators, 

Applicability 

January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-9 Incinerators, 

Biomedical Waste 

Incinerators, 

Definitions 

January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

10 

Incinerators, 

Biomedical Waste 

Incinerators, Design 

and operation 

January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-17-

11 

Incinerators, 

Biomedical Waste 

Incinerators, 

Emission limits 

January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-1 Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

General Provisions, 

Purpose 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-2 Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

General Provisions, 

Definitions 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-4 Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

General Provisions, 

Excess emission 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 
10

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

reporting and 

alternative reporting 

schedule 

OAC 252:100-31-7 Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

Ambient Air 

Concentration 

Limits or Impacts 

for New and 

Existing Equipment, 

Sources, or 

Facilities, 

Allowable H2S 

ambient air 

concentrations for 

new and existing 

sources 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-

13 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

Existing Equipment 

Standards, 

Requirements for 

existing sulfuric 

acid plants 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-

15 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

Existing Equipment 

Standards, 

Requirements for 

existing kraft pulp 

mills 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-

16 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, 

Existing Equipment 

Standards, 

Requirements for 

existing fossil-fuel 

fired steam 

generators 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-

25 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, New 

Equipment 

Standards, 

Requirements for 

new fuel-burning 

equipment 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100-31-

26 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, New 

Equipment 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 
11

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013 

Section Title Date Submitted to 

EPA 

Adopted by State Comments 

Standards, 

Requirements for 

new petroleum and 

natural gas 

processes 

OAC 252:100-31-

27 

Control of Sulfur 

Compounds, New 

Equipment 

Standards, Pulp 

Mills 

January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

OAC 252:100, 

Appendix A 

Allowable 

Particulate Matter 

Emission Rate for 

Incinerators 

January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

May 3, 2011 separate action. 

OAC 252:100, 

Appendix Q 

IBR January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed 

by EPA in a 

separate action. 

 
12

II. Technical Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP 

Submittal 

A. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal with respect to 

Appendix V to Part 51 

The criteria for completeness determination are found in Appendix V to Part 51 - Criteria for 

determining the completeness of plan submissions and are outlined below: 

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State 

implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for 

purposes of review under § 51.103. 

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to 

meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying the 

component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan. 

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the 

requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no 

later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or 

revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a 

submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months 

from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that the 

submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103. 

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of Appendix V. 

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "parallel process procedure" which EPA can use to 

expedite the review and adoption of SIP revisions Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 

is not applicable to the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal. 
13

SIP Completeness Checklist for the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal

Administrative Materials (2.1) 

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her 

designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision. 

The SIP revision was submitted by a letter from Governor Mike Beebe, dated November 

6, 2012. The SIP submittal was received by EPA Region Air Permits Section on 

December 3, 2012. 

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of 

regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter 

document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final 

issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date. 

The revisions were adopted by the APC&EC on June 22, 2012, effective on July 9, 2012. 

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt 

and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority. 

The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission is authorized to adopt the 

amendments to APC&EC Regulation No 19. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 

(A.C.A.) § 8-1-203(b)(1)(A), “Promulgation of rules and regulations implementing the 

substantive statutes charged to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for 

administration.” 

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and 

incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the 

existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation 

document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 

The November 6, 2012, submittal included a copy of the official State regulation 

document, signed, stamped, and dated by John Chamberlin, Chairman. The adopted rules 

were effective on July 12, 2012, and November 18, 2012. 

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws 

and/or its constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan. 

The SIP submittals were developed pursuant to 40 CFR 51.104. 
14

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent 

with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, 

(e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The 

notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s)). 

Notices of public hearing were published in the following newspaper on the dates listed: 

 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette: February 2 and 3, 2011. 

A public hearing was held in North Little Rock, AR on March 8, 2011. 

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and 

constitution, if applicable. 

A responsive summary of the March 8, 2011, hearing was included that provided 

evidence the hearing was conducted pursuant to the Arkansas Pollution Control and 

Ecology Commission rulemaking procedures. 

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included. 

A responsive summary of the March 8, 2011, hearing was included that groups public 

comments into similar categories and explains why the Arkansas Pollution Control and 

Ecology Commission accepts or rejects the rationale for each category. APC&EC also 

received written testimony from Region 6 during the comment period. 

Technical Support (2.2) 

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package. 

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included. 

 The revisions to the Arkansas PSD program apply to all pollutants regulated 

under the PSD program. 

 The November 6, 2012 revisions expand the applicability of the PSD program to 

regulate GHGs above certain thresholds, consistent with EPA’s GHG Tailoring 

Rule. 

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA 

attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment 

plan for the affected area(s) is included. 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the PSD permitting program that applies 

statewide in Arkansas. These submitted regulations apply for all pollutants regulated 

under the Arkansas PSD program. 
15

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is 

included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from 

affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions 

from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline 

levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.) 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing Arkansas PSD program. 

Quantification of changes in the SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is not 

necessary for inclusion. Any new sources of GHG emissions subject to regulation under 

the PSD program will follow the SIP-approved PSD permitting process. 

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and 

visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approved and 

implemented. 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing PSD program to IBR federal 

requirements as of November 29, 2005, and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring 

Rule thresholds. There is no demonstration included that the NAAQS/PSD 

increments/RFP demonstration and visibility are protected because there are no current 

NAAQS or increment for GHGs and the GHG thresholds will not interfere with RFP or 

visibility. 

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS: 

 a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality 

standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act? 

 Not applicable. 

 b. Are contingency measures included? 

 Not applicable. 

6. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision. 

Modeling information is not necessary to support these SIP revisions. 

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous 

emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment 

designs, reformulated materials, etc.). 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing PSD program to update the 

IBR date of federal requirements and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Any requirements for emission limitations or emission reduction technology 

for GHGs will be implemented pursuant to the SIP-approved PSD permitting program. 
16

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing PSD program and do not 

contain or revise emission limitations or workplace standards. Emission limitations and 

workplace standards will be established in individual PSD permits issued pursuant to the 

federally approved Arkansas PSD program. 

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in 

practice (including at what frequency). 

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing PSD program to update the 

IBR date of federal requirements and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Compliance will be determined on an individual permit basis for PSD 

permits issued pursuant to the federally approved Arkansas PSD program. 

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per 

applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary 

should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such 

justification. 

These justifications are not necessary for the November 6, 2012 SIP submittal. 

The November 6, 2012, SIP submittal meets the completeness criteria established in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

B. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal with respect to the 

federal requirements for PSD Permitting 

This TSD only addresses the portion of the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal that 

pertains to the Biomass Deferral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifically, only the portion of the 

general definition of “CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e)” at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 as follows: 

Table 5: Analysis of Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 EPA’s Analysis 

SIP-Approved by EPA on March 4, 

2015 at 80 FR 11573. 

“CO2 equivalent emissions” 

(CO2e) shall represent an amount of 

GHGs emitted, and shall be 

computed by multiplying the mass 

amount of emissions in tons per 

year (tpy), for each of the six 

greenhouse gases in the pollutant 

GHGs, by the gas’s associated 

global warming potential published 

at Table A - 1 to subpart A of 40 

Revisions submitted on November 

6, 2012. 

“CO2 equivalent emissions” 

(CO2e) shall represent an amount of 

GHGs emitted, and shall be 

computed by multiplying the mass 

amount of emissions in tons per 

year (tpy), for each of the six 

greenhouse gases in the pollutant 

GHGs, by the gas’s associated 

global warming potential published 

at Table A - 1 to subpart A of 40 

The revisions to the definition of 

“CO2 equivalent emissions” 

submitted on November 6, 2012, 

are identical to the EPA’s Biomass 

Deferral provisions that were 

promulgated on July 20, 2011, at 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(49). 

This Biomass Deferral was vacated 

by the DC Circuit Court on July 

12, 2013. 
17

Table 5: Analysis of Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 EPA’s Analysis 

CFR part 98 - Global Warming 

Potentials (which is incorporated by 

reference as finalized by EPA as of 

October 30, 2009), and summing 

the resultant value for each to 

compute a tpy CO2 equivalent 

emissions. 

CFR part 98 - Global Warming 

Potentials (which is incorporated by 

reference as finalized by EPA as of 

October 30, 2009), and summing 

the resultant value for each to 

compute a tpy CO2 equivalent 

emissions. For purposes of this 

definition, prior to July 21, 2014, 

the mass of the greenhouse gas 

carbon dioxide shall not include 

carbon dioxide emissions resulting 

from the combustion or 

decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic material 

originating from plants, animals, or 

microorganisms (including 

products, by-products, residues and 

waste from agriculture, forestry and 

related industries as well as the nonfossilized and biodegradable 

organic fractions of industrial and 

municipal wastes, including gases 

and liquids recovered from the 

decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic material). 

The Biomass Deferral itself has 

already expired and therefore 

cannot be used by any Arkansas 

PSD sources. However, the 

provision was submitted as a 

revision to the Arkansas SIP and 

has not been withdrawn from our 

consideration. Therefore, the EPA 

has an obligation to act on the 

submitted provision. 

The submitted provision should be 

disapproved because it is no longer 

a usable or functioning component 

of the Arkansas GHG PSD 

program. 

C. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal respect to section 

110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states: 

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by 

such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act. 

Thus, under section 110(l), the November 6, 2012, SIP submittal containing revisions to the 

Arkansas General Definitions for use in the Arkansas PSD permitting program must not interfere 

with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 

The EPA has already approved the remainder of the November 6, 2012, revisions to the 

Arkansas PSD permitting program to provide the authority to regulate GHGs and issue PSD 

permits consistent with federal requirements. The remaining portion of the November 6, 2012, 

submitted general definition of “CO2 equivalent emissions” is to adopt a now-expired provision 

allowing for an exemption of biomass from GHG PSD permitting. The EPA must act on the 

submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our obligations under section 110 of the Act 

which require us to take action on revisions to a SIP unless the provisions are withdrawn. Our 

action to propose disapproval of the expired provision will not undermine any existing 
18

requirement of the Arkansas SIP or the CAA because the provision can no longer be used under 

federal law. 

III. Technical Evaluation of the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP 

Submittal 

This technical review of the January 8, 2013, revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC consists of a 

comparison between the relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the corresponding sections in 

the SIP submittal. The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal will also be reviewed for completeness as 

under Part 51, Appendix V. 

A. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP Submittal with respect to the 

Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist 

Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 establishes the criteria for determining the completeness of plan 

submissions. Appendix V to Part 51 is outlined below: 

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a 

State implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission 

for purposes of review under § 51.103. 

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to 

meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying 

the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan. 

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the 

requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no 

later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or 

revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a 

submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 

months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that 

the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103. 

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix V. 

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "parallel process procedure" which EPA can use to 

expedite the review and adoption of SIP revisions. The January 8, 2013 NM SIP revision was not 

submitted with a request for parallel processing; therefore Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR 

Part 51 is not included in this review. 

 
19

SIP Completeness Checklist for the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her 

designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision. 

Mr. David Martin, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department, in a letter 

dated January 8, 2013, submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP to amend the PSD 

program at 20.2.74 NMAC. EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section received the submittal on 

January 18, 2013. This submittal package also included amendments to the New Mexico 

Operating Permits Program at 20.2.70 NMAC, but as explained previously in Section I of 

this TSD, 20.2.70 NMAC is not under review in this TSD. 

In a letter dated August 31, 2011, Governor Martinez designated the authority to submit 

revisions to the New Mexico SIP to the Secretary of the New Mexico Environment 

Department. 

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of 

regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter 

document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final 

issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date. 

The revisions were adopted by the NM EIB on January 7, 2013, and became effective on 

February 6, 2013. 

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt 

and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority. 

The New Mexico Air Quality Act provides for regulation at 74-2-5.1 NMSA 1978. Duties 

and powers of the department and the local agency; and for plan revisions at 74-2-5.2 

NMSA 1978. State air pollution control agency; specific duties and powers of the 

department. 

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and 

incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the 

existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation 

document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 

The January 8, 2013 submittal included a copy of the official State regulation document, 

signed and dated by Ms. Deborah Peacock, Chair of the New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Board. The effective date is indicated as February 6, 2013. 

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws 

and/or its constitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the 

plan. 
20

The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal included a letter signed by Bill Grantham, Assistant 

General Counsel to the New Mexico Environment Department, that demonstrated the SIP 

submittal was developed pursuant to 20.1.1 NMAC – Rulemaking Procedures. The NM 

EIB is authorized to adopt revisions to the NM PSD/NNSR program under the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, §74-2-5. 

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent 

with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, 

(e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The 

notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s). 

Notices of public hearings were published in the following publications on the date 

listed: 

 The Albuquerque Journal on October 6, 2012. 

 The New Mexico Register on September 28, 2012. 

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and 

constitution, if applicable. 

 

The submittal package included a transcript of the December 3, 2012 public hearing. 

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included. 

The NMED did not receive any comments on the rulemaking. 

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package. 

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included. 

The January 8, 2013 submittal revises the New Mexico PSD permitting regulations to 

defer the applicability of the GHG PSD provisions for sources of biomass. 

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA 

attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment 

plan for the affected area(s) is included. 

The January 8, 2013, revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC will apply to major sources subject to 

the PSD permitting program statewide. 
21

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is 

included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from 

affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions 

from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline 

levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.) 

Not required for the January 8, 2013 revisions to the New Mexico PSD permit program. 

Allowable emissions consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed 

on a permit-by-permit basis. 

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and 

visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approved and 

implemented. 

The January 8, 2013 revisions to the New Mexico PSD permit program are adopted and 

submitted consistent with the revisions to the federal GHG PSD permitting requirements. 

Adoption of these programs will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration 

and visibility. 

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS: 

 a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality 

standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act? 

 Not applicable. 

 b. Are contingency measures included? 

 Not applicable. 

7. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision. 

Modeling information is not necessary to support the January 8, 2013 SIP submittal. 

Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-permit basis in accordance with the PSD 

regulations. 

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous 

emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment 

designs, reformulated materials, etc.). 

The January 8, 2013 SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations. Emission 

limitations will be established on a permit-by-permit basis according to the applicable 

PSD requirements. 

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. 
22

The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice 

standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission levels. 

Each PSD permit will include these items as necessary to implement the CAA and the 

PSD permit program. 

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in 

practice (including at what frequency). 

The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement 

strategies. Each PSD permit will separately address compliance/enforcement. 

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per 

applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary 

should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such 

justification. 

 These justifications are not necessary for the January 8, 2013 SIP submittal. 

The January 8, 2013 NM SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 
B. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to the 

federal requirements for PSD Permitting 

This TSD only addresses the portion of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal that 

pertain to the Biomass Deferral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifically, only the portion of the 

definition of “subject to regulation” at 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) as follows: 

Table 6: Analysis of Revisions to 20.2.74.7 NMAC EPA’s Analysis 

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) 

As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013 

AZ.“Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant is 

subject to either a provision in the act, or a nationally-applicable regulation 

codified by the administrator in subchapter C of 40 CFR Chapter I, that requires 

actual control of the quantity of emissions of that pollutant, and that such a 

control requirement has taken effect and is operative to control, limit or restrict 

the quantity of emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. 

Except that: 

No revisions under review. 

Language provided for 

context only. 

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) 

As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013 

1. “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” shall not be subject to regulation except as 

provided in paragraphs AZ(4) and (5) of this section and shall not be 

subject to regulation if the stationary source maintains its total 

sourcewide emissions below the GHG PAL level, meets the 

requirements in 20.2.74.320 NMAC, and complies with the PAL permit 

containing the GHG PAL; 

No revisions under review. 

Language provided for 

context only. 

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) 

As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013 

2. for purposes of Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection AZ of this 

section, the term “tons per year CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e)” 

shall represent an amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed 

asfollows: 

No revisions under review. 

Language provided for 

context only. 

SIP-Approved on January 22, 2013 (78 

FR 4339) as submitted by NMED on 

May 23, 2011 

a. multiplying the mass 

amount of emissions 

(tons per year), for each 

of the six greenhouse 

gases in the pollutant 

GHGs, by the gas's 

associated global 

warming potential 

published at table A-I to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 

98 – Global Warming 

Potentials; 

Revisions submitted January 8, 2013 

a. multiplying the mass 

amount of emissions (tons 

per year), for each of the 

six greenhouse gases in the 

pollutant GHGs, by the 

gas's associated global 

warming potential 

published at table A-I to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 

98 – Global Warming 

Potentials; for purposes of 

this subparagraph, prior to 

July 21, 2014, the mass of 

the greenhouse gas carbon 

dioxide shall not include 

carbon dioxide emissions 

resulting from the 

combustion or 

decomposition of nonfossilized and 

The revisions to the 

definition of “subject to 

regulation” at 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC 

submitted on January 8, 

2013, are identical to the 

EPA’s Biomass Deferral 

provisions that were 

promulgated on July 20, 

2011 at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49). 

This Biomass Deferral was 

vacated by the DC Circuit 

Court on July 12, 2013. 

The Biomass Deferral itself 

has already expired and 

therefore cannot be used by 

any New Mexico PSD 

sources. However, the 

provision was submitted as a 
24

Table 6: Analysis of Revisions to 20.2.74.7 NMAC EPA’s Analysis 

biodegradable organic 

material originating from 

plants, animals or microorganisms (including 

products, by-products, 

residues and waste from 

agriculture, forestry, and 

related industries, as well 

as the non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic 

fractions of industrial and 

municipal wastes, 

including gases and liquids 

recovered from the 

decomposition of nonfossilized and 

biodegradable organic 

material); 

revision to the New Mexico 

SIP and has not been 

withdrawn from our 

consideration. Therefore, the 

EPA has an obligation to act 

on the submitted provision. 

The submitted provision 

should be disapproved 

because it is no longer a 

usable or functioning 

component of the NM GHG 

PSD program. 

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) 

As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013 

b. sum the resultant value from Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph (2) of 

Subsection AZ of this section for each gas to compute a tons per 

year CO2e; 

No revisions under review. 

Language provided for 

context only. 

C. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to 

section 110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states: 

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by 

such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act. 

Thus, under section 110(l), the January 8, 2013, SIP submittal containing revisions to the NM 

PSD permitting program must not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA has already approved the January 8, 2013, 

revisions to the New Mexico PSD permit program to adopt and implement the GHG PAL 

permitting provisions as finalized by the EPA. The remainder of the January 8, 2013, submittal is 

to adopt a now-expired provision allowing for an exemption of biomass from GHG PSD 

permitting. The EPA must act on the submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our 

obligations under section 110 of the Act which require us to take action on revisions to a SIP 

unless the provisions are withdrawn. Our action to propose disapproval of the expired provision 

will not undermine any existing requirement of the NM SIP or the CAA because the provision 

can no longer be used under federal law. 
25

IV. Technical Evaluation of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP 

Submittal 

This technical review of the February 6, 2012, revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 

252:100-8-31 consists of a comparison between the relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the 

corresponding sections in the SIP submittal. The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal will also be 

reviewed for completeness as under Part 51, Appendix V. 

A. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the 

Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist 

Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 establishes the criteria for determining the completeness of plan 

submissions. Appendix V to Part 51 is outlined below: 

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a 

State implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission 

for purposes of review under § 51.103. 

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to 

meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying 

the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan. 

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the 

requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no 

later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or 

revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a 

submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 

months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that 

the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103. 

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix V. 

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "parallel process procedure" which EPA can use to 

expedite the review and adoption of SIP revisions. The February 6, 2012 SIP revision was not 

submitted with a request for parallel processing; therefore Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR 

Part 51 is not included in this review. 

 
26

SIP Completeness Checklist for the February 6, 2012. Oklahoma SIP Submittal

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her 

designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision. 

Mr. Gary Sherrer, Oklahoma State Secretary of the Environment, in a letter dated 

February 6, 2012, submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to amend the Minor NSR 

Program at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and PSD program at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 

252:100-8-31 for GHG permitting. This submittal package also included amendments to 

other portions of the Oklahoma SIP not under review in this TSD. 

In a letter dated March 30, 2011, Governor Mary Fallin designated the authority to 

submit revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to the Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment. 

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of 

regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter 

document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final 

issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date. 

The revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 were adopted on May 3, 

2011, effective July 1, 2011. 

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt 

and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority. 

27A O.S. §2-5-105 designates the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality as the 

administrative agency for the Oklahoma Clean Air Act. The ODEQ has the authority to 

carry out all duties, requirements, and responsibilities necessary and proper for the 

implementation of the Oklahoma CAA and fulfilling the requirements of the federal CAA 

under 27A O.S. §§1-3-101(B)(8), 2-3-101(E)(1), and 2-5-105. 

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and 

incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the 

existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation 

document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 

The February 6, 2012, submittal included a copy of the official State regulation 

documents. The effective date of the revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-

8-31 is July 1, 2011. 

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws 

and/or its constitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the 

plan. 
27

The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal included a letter signed by Eddie Terrill, Director of 

the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, that demonstrated the SIP 

submittal was developed pursuant to the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 2501.1 through 323 and 40 CFR 51.102(d), 51.102(f), and 

Appendix V. 

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent 

with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, 

(e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The 

notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s). 

 The notice of public hearing for the revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1and OAC 

252:100-8-31 was published in the Oklahoma Register on December 15, 2010. 

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and 

constitution, if applicable. 

 

The public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 

were held on January 19, 2011. 

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included. 

The February 6, 2012, submittal included a compilation of the comments received and 

the State’s response. 

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package. 

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included. 

The January February 6, 2012, submittal revises the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD 

permitting regulations to address emissions of GHGs. 

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA 

attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment 

plan for the affected area(s) is included. 

The January 18, 2013, revisions to the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD program will 

apply statewide. 
28

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is 

included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from 

affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions 

from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline 

levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.) 

Not required for the February 6, 2012, revisions to the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD 

permit programs. Allowable emissions consistent with the Minor NSR and PSD 

permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit-by-permit basis. 

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and 

visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approved and 

implemented. 

The February 6, 2012 revisions to the Oklahoma minor NSR and PSD permit program 

require additional permitting of GHG emissions. Adoption of these programs will protect 

the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility. 

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS: 

 a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality 

standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act? 

 Not applicable. 

 b. Are contingency measures included? 

 Not applicable. 

8. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision. 

Modeling information is not necessary to support the February 6, 2012 SIP submittal. 

Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-permit basis in accordance with the minor 

NSR and PSD regulations. 

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous 

emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment 

designs, reformulated materials, etc.). 

The February 6, 2012 SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations. Emission 

limitations will be established on a permit-by-permit basis according to the applicable 

minor NSR and PSD requirements. 

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. 
29

The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. Each minor NSR or PSD permit will include these items as necessary to implement 

the CAA and the minor NSR or PSD permit program. 

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in 

practice (including at what frequency). 

The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement 

strategies. Each permit will separately address compliance/enforcement. 

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per 

applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary 

should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such 

justification. 

 These justifications are not necessary for the February 6, 2012 SIP submittal. 

The February 6, 2012 SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 
B. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the 

federal requirements minor NSR and PSD Permitting 

This TSD only addresses the severable portions of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP 

submittal that pertain to the minor source GHG permitting and PSD permitting for non-anyway 

sources. 

Table 7: Analysis of Revisions to OK SIP February 6, 2012 

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 EPA comments 

Revisions effective July 1, 2011; Submitted February 6, 2012 

Minor permits for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting facilities 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions shall not be included in a minor 

facility permit nor cause a facility to be subject to minor facility 

permitting requirements contained in OAC 252:100-7, unless the owner 

or operator of that facility requests that GHG emission limits and/or 

physical or operational limitations be included in a minor permit for the 

facility to set enforceable limits to keep potential GHG emission levels 

below the applicability threshold levels for the PSD construction permit 

program and/or the Part 70 operating permit program. Physical or 

operational limitations may include, but are not limited to, air pollution 

control equipment, restrictions on hours of operation, and/or restrictions 

on the type or amount of materials combusted, stored, or processed.

The EPA is disapproving the 

submitted revision at OAC 252:100-

7-2.1 to establish minor permits for 

GHG emitting facilities. These 

provisions are no longer valid under 

federal law because PSD and title V 

applicability is not triggered by a 

source’s GHG emissions. 

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 EPA comments 

Revisions effective July 1, 2011; Submitted February 6, 2012 

“Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant is 

subject to either a provision in the federal Clean Air Act, or a nationallyapplicable regulation codified by the EPA Administrator in subchapter C 

of Chapter I of 40 CFR, that requires actual control of the quantity of 

emissions of that pollutant, and that such a control requirement has taken 

effect and is operative to control, limit, or restrict the quantity of 

emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. Except 

that: 

A. Greenhouse gases (GHG) shall not be subject to regulation 

except as provided in (D) through (E) of this definition. 

B. For purposes of (C) through (E) of this definition, the term TPY 

CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount of 

GHG emitted, and shall be computed as follows: 

i. Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (in TPY). 

for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant 

GHG, by the gas' associated global warming potential 

(GWP) published in Table A-I to subpart A of40 CFR 

Part 98 B Global Warming Potentials. 

ii. Summing the resultant value from (B)(i) of this 

definition for each gas to compute a TPY CO2e. 

C. The term emissions increase as used in (D) through (E) of this 

definition shall mean that both a significant emissions increase 

(as calculated using the procedures in OAC 252:100-8-30(b)(1) 

through (5)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined 

in the definitions of “net emissions increase” and “significant” 

in 252: 100-8-31) occur. For the pollutant GHG, an emissions 

increase shall be based on TPY CO2e, and shall be calculated 

assuming the pollutant GHG is a regulated NSR pollutant, and 

“significant” is defined as 75,000 TPY CO2e and the emissions 

The EPA is disapproving the 

February 6, 2012, submitted 

revisions at OAC 252:100-8-31, 

definition of “subject to regulation”, 

paragraph E, because the provisions 

pertain to PSD permitting of nonanyway (or step 2) sources of GHGs. 

The step 2 GHG PSD permitting 

requirements were vacated by the 

Supreme Court in UARG v. EPA, 

and removed from federal 

regulations by the EPA on August 

19, 2015. 

The EPA is separately evaluating the 

remainder of the definition of 

“subject to regulation” at OAC 

252:100-8-31 as submitted on 

February 6, 2012. 
31

are otherwise subject to regulation as previously described in 

this definition. 

D. Beginning January 2, 2011. the pollutant GHG is subject to 

regulation if it meets the other requirements of this definition 

and if: 

i. The stationary source is a new major 

stationary source for a regulated NSR 

pollutant that is not GHG, and also will emit 

or will have the potential to emit 75.000 TPY 

CO2e or more; or 

ii. The stationary source is an existing major 

stationary source for a regulated NSR 

pollutant that is not GHG and also will have 

an emissions increase or a regulated NSR 

pollutant, and an emissions increase 75.000 

TPY CO2e or more. 

E. Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition to the provisions in (D) of 

this definition, the pollutant GHG shall also be subject to 

regulation: 

i. At a new stationary source that will emit or have the 

potential to emit 100,000 TPY CO2e; or 

ii. At an existing stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit 100,000 TPY CO2e when such 

stationary source undertakes a physical change or 

change in the method of operation that will result in an 

emissions increase 75,000 TPY CO2e or more. 

F. If federal legislation or a federal court stays, invalidates, delays 

the effective date, or otherwise renders unenforceable by the 

EPA, in whole or in part, the EPA's tailoring rule (75 FR 31514, 

June 3, 2010), endangerment finding (74 FR 66496, December 

15, 2009), or light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission 

standard (75 FR 25686, May 7, 2010), this definition shall be 

enforceable only to the extent that it is enforceable by the EPA.

C. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to 

section 110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states: 

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by 

such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act. 

Thus, under section 110(l), the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal containing revisions 

to the Oklahoma minor NSR and PSD permitting programs for GHG regulation must not 

interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of 

the Act. We are proposing disapproval of severable portions of this submittal that are 

inconsistent with federal law and regulatory requirements GHG permitting. As such, our 

proposed disapproval will not undermine any applicable requirement of the CAA. 
32
33

V. Technical Evaluation of the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP 

Submittal 

This technical review of the January 18, 2013, revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-

8-31 consists of a comparison between the relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the 

corresponding sections in the SIP submittal. The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal will also be 

reviewed for completeness as under Part 51, Appendix V. 

A. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the 

Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist 

Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 establishes the criteria for determining the completeness of plan 

submissions. Appendix V to Part 51 is outlined below: 

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a 

State implementation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission 

for purposes of review under § 51.103. 

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to 

meet the criteria set forth in this appendix V, and request corrective action, identifying 

the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan. 

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the 

requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no 

later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or 

revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a 

submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 

months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that 

the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103. 

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix V. 

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "parallel process procedure" which EPA can use to 

expedite the review and adoption of SIP revisions. The January 18, 2013 SIP revision was not 

submitted with a request for parallel processing; therefore Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR 

Part 51 is not included in this review. 

 
34

SIP Completeness Checklist for the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her 

designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision. 

Mr. Gary Sherrer, Oklahoma State Secretary of the Environment, in a letter dated 

January 18, 2013, submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to amend the PSD program 

at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31. This submittal package also included 

amendments to other portions of the Oklahoma SIP not under review in this TSD. 

In a letter dated March 30, 2011, Governor Mary Fallin designated the authority to 

submit revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to the Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment. 

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or body of 

regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter 

document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final 

issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/issuance date. 

The revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 were adopted on May 1, 2012, effective July 1, 2012. 

The revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 were adopted on March 29, 2012, effective on July 1, 

2012. 

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt 

and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority. 

27A O.S. §2-5-105 designates the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality as the 

administrative agency for the Oklahoma Clean Air Act. The ODEQ has the authority to 

carry out all duties, requirements, and responsibilities necessary and proper for the 

implementation of the Oklahoma CAA and fulfilling the requirements of the federal CAA 

under 27A O.S. §§1-3-101(B)(8), 2-3-101(E)(1), and 2-5-105. 

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and 

incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the 

existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation 

document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 

The January 18, 2013 submittal included a copy of the official State regulation 

documents. The effective date of the revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-

31 is July 1, 2012. 

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws 

and/or its constitution in the conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the 

plan. 
35

The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal included a letter signed by Eddie Terrill, Director of 

the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, that demonstrated the SIP 

submittal was developed pursuant to the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 2501.1 through 323 and 40 CFR 51.102(d), 51.102(f), and 

Appendix V. 

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent 

with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, 

(e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The 

notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s). 

 The notice of public hearing for the revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 was published 

in the Oklahoma Register on December 1, 2011. 

 The notice of public hearing for the revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 was 

published in the Oklahoma Register on December 15, 2010. 

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and 

constitution, if applicable. 

 

The public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 were held on January 18, 2012 

and February 24, 2012; the public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 were 

held on January 19, 2011 and February 25, 2011. 

8. A compilation of public comments and the State's response is included. 

The January 18, 2013 submittal included a compilation of the comments received and the 

State’s response. 

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package. 

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included. 

The January 18, 2013 submittal revises the Oklahoma PSD permitting regulations to 

defer the applicability of the GHG PSD provisions for sources of biomass. 

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA 

attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment 

plan for the affected area(s) is included. 

The January 18, 2013, revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program will apply to major 

sources subject to the PSD permitting program statewide. 
36

3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is 

included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from 

affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions 

from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline 

levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.) 

Not required for the January 18, 2013 revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permit program. 

Allowable emissions consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed 

on a permit-by-permit basis. 

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and 

visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approved and 

implemented. 

The January 18, 2013 revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permit program are adopted and 

submitted consistent with the revisions to the federal GHG PSD permitting requirements. 

Adoption of these programs will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration 

and visibility. 

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS: 

 a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality 

standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act? 

 Not applicable. 

 b. Are contingency measures included? 

 Not applicable. 

9. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision. 

Modeling information is not necessary to support the January 18, 2013 SIP submittal. 

Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-permit basis in accordance with the PSD 

regulations. 

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous 

emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industrial/process equipment 

designs, reformulated materials, etc.). 

The January 18, 2013 SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations. Emission 

limitations will be established on a permit-by-permit basis according to the applicable 

PSD requirements. 

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. 
37

The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission 

levels. Each PSD permit will include these items as necessary to implement the CAA and 

the PSD permit program. 

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in 

practice (including at what frequency). 

The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement 

strategies. Each PSD permit will separately address compliance/enforcement. 

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per 

applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary 

should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such 

justification. 

 These justifications are not necessary for the January 18, 2013 SIP submittal. 

The January 8, 2013 SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix V. 
38

B. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the 

federal requirements for PSD Permitting 

This TSD only addresses the portion of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal that 

pertain to the Biomass Deferral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifically, only the portion of the 

definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and the definition of “subject to 

regulation” in OAC 252:100-8-31as follows: 

Table 8: Analysis of Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP January 18, 2013 

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 EPA comments 

Revisions effective July 1, 2012; Submitted January 18, 2013 

“Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” or “CO2e” means an amount 

of GHG emitted, and shall be computed by multiplying the mass amount 

of emissions, for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHG, 

by the gas’ associated global warming potential (GWP) published in 

Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR Part 98 B Global Warming Potentials, 

and summing the resultant value for each to compute a CO2e. For 

purposes of the definitions of “subject to regulation” in OAC 252:100-8-

2 and 252:100-8-31, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse 

gas carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting 

from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic materials originating from plants, animals, or 

micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste 

from agriculture, forestry and related industries, as well as the nonfossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal 

wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of 

non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material).

The EPA is separately evaluating the 

definition of “carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions” as submitted 

on February 6, 2012. 

The revisions submitted to the 

definition of CO2e on January 18, 

2013, adopt the GHG Biomass 

Deferral promulgated by the EPA on 

July 11, 2011 at 76 FR 43490. The 

Biomass Deferral expired on July 21, 

2014. Further, the deferral was 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit on July 

12, 2013. 

The Biomass Deferral itself has 

already expired and therefore cannot 

be used by any Oklahoma PSD 

sources. However, the provision was 

submitted as a revision to the 

Oklahoma SIP and has not been 

withdrawn from our consideration. 

Therefore, the EPA has an obligation 

to act on the submitted provision. 

The submitted provision should be 

disapproved because it is no longer a 

usable or functioning component of 

the Oklahoma GHG PSD program. 

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 EPA comments 

Revisions effective July 1, 2012; Submitted January 18, 2013. 

“Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant is 

subject to either a provision in the federal Clean Air Act, or a nationallyapplicable regulation codified by the EPA Administrator in subchapter C 

of Chapter I of 40 CFR, that requires actual control of the quantity of 

emissions of that pollutant, and that such a control requirement has taken 

effect and is operative to control, limit, or restrict the quantity of 

emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. Except 

that: 

G. Greenhouse gases (GHG) shall not be subject to regulation except as 

provided in (D) through (E) of this definition. 

H. For purposes of (C) through (E) of this definition, the term TPY CO2 

equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount of GHG 

emitted, and shall be computed as follows: 

The EPA is separately evaluating the 

definition of “subject to regulation” 

as submitted on February 6, 2012, 

with the exception of paragraph E. 

The revisions submitted to the 

definition of “subject to regulation” 

at OAC 252:100-8-31 on January 18, 

2013, adopt the GHG Biomass 

Deferral promulgated by the EPA on 

July 11, 2011 at 76 FR 43490. The 

Biomass Deferral expired on July 21, 

2014. Further, the deferral was 
39

Table 8: Analysis of Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP January 18, 2013 

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 EPA comments 

i. Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (in TPY). for each 

of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHG, by the gas' 

associated global warming potential (GWP) published in 

Table A-I to subpart A of40 CFR Part 98 B Global Warming 

Potentials. For purposes of this definition, prior to July 21, 

2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide shall not 

include carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the 

combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic material originating from plants, 

animals, or micro-organisms (including products, by-products, 

residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and related 

industries, as well as the non-fossilized and biodegradable 

organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including 

gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material). 

ii. Summing the resultant value from (B)(i) of this definition for 

each gas to compute a TPY CO2e. 

I. The term emissions increase as used in (D) through (E) of this 

definition shall mean that both a significant emissions increase (as 

calculated using the procedures in OAC 252:100-8-30(b)(1) through 

(5)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the 

definitions of “net emissions increase” and “significant” in 252: 100-

8-31) occur. For the pollutant GHG, an emissions increase shall be 

based on TPY CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant 

GHG is a regulated NSR pollutant, and “significant” is defined as 

75,000 TPY CO2e and the emissions are otherwise subject to 

regulation as previously described in this definition. 

J. Beginning January 2, 2011. the pollutant GHG is subject to 

regulation if it meets the other requirements of this definition and if: 

i. The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a 

regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG, and also will emit or 

will have the potential to emit 75.000 TPY CO2e or more; or 

ii. The stationary source is an existing major stationary source 

for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG and also will 

have an emissions increase or a regulated NSR pollutant, and 

an emissions increase 75.000 TPY CO2e or more. 

K. NOT IN SIP. 

L. If federal legislation or a federal court stays, invalidates, delays the 

effective date, or otherwise renders unenforceable by the EPA, in 

whole or in part, the EPA's tailoring rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 

2010), endangerment finding (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009), 

or light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standard (75 FR 

25686, May 7, 2010), this definition shall be enforceable only to the 

extent that it is enforceable by the EPA.

vacated by the D.C. Circuit on July 

12, 2013. 

The Biomass Deferral itself has 

already expired and therefore cannot 

be used by any Oklahoma PSD 

sources. However, the provision was 

submitted as a revision to the 

Oklahoma SIP and has not been 

withdrawn from our consideration. 

Therefore, the EPA has an obligation 

to act on the submitted provision. 

The submitted provision should be 

disapproved because it is no longer a 

usable or functioning component of 

the Oklahoma GHG PSD program.

C. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to 

section 110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states: 
40

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by 

such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act. 

Thus, under section 110(l), the January 18, 2013, SIP submittal containing revisions to the 

Oklahoma PSD permitting program must not interfere with attainment or reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA is separately evaluating the 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP and PSD program that are not related to the GHG Biomass 

Deferral. The EPA must act on the submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our 

obligations under section 110 of the Act which require us to take action on revisions to a SIP 

unless the provisions are withdrawn. Our action to propose disapproval of the expired GHG 

Biomass Deferral provision will not undermine any existing requirement of the OK SIP or the 

CAA because the provision can no longer be used under federal law. 
41

V. Conclusion 

The technical analysis provided in the preceding sections has compared the applicable sections 

of the CAA and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 to the proposed revisions to the Arkansas SIP submitted 

on November 6, 2012; the New Mexico SIP submitted on January 8, 2013; and the Oklahoma 

SIP submitted on January 18, 2013, to adopt the EPA’s expired GHG Biomass Deferral. The 

EPA’s analysis found that the proposed revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma 

SIPs should be disapproved because the provision is no longer consistent with federal law. As 

such, the EPA should propose disapproval of the following revisions: 

 Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of “CO2 equivalent emissions” at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on 

November 6, 2012; and 

 Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of “Subject to Regulation” at 

20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC implementing the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on 

January 8, 2013. 

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and “subject to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 

implementing the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 18, 2013. 

The technical analysis also identified portions of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal 

that provide for permitting of GHGs inconsistent with federal laws. As such, the EPA should 

propose to disapprove the following revisions: 

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting 

requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and 

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing 

PSD permitting requirements for non-anyway sources at paragraph (E) of the definition 

of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012.